User talk:Boromir123

Welcome!

Hello, Boromir123, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! ElinorD (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey, I was just looking at the page for Gov. Jindal and it looks like you've been doing a great job over there. Keep up the good work! - Schrandit (talk) 20:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Did you see this discussion - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=337689481&oldid=337130963? - When you get a chance please add your comments. Radiantenergy (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Boromir123! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 676 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Marnix Van Holsbeeck - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 04:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

addition

saw the edit on the voting record. I was going to check on that myself later because it seemed POV. Thanks for the clarification.Malke 2010 02:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: A couple of users have given me some advice that I should explain the reasons for deletion/changes either on an article discussion page or on the edit summary. I promise to be more diligent in this regard in the future.Boromir123 (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs

Just a quick note - there is a significant difference between a blog by a newspaper reporter done on a newspaper website, and a personal blog. The first is a reliable source; the second is (almost always) not. To quote the guideline:

Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rajendra K. Pachauri

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Rajendra K. Pachauri, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 13:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for improving the sourcing here. Please be aware, however, that as discussion at the talkpage had not reached consensus for inclusion of the text in question, this was edit warring. Please in future participate in such discussions instead of reverting the article text. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I appreciate your work on the McDonnell page. It received a well-deserved and long overdue facelift. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.241.212 (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts to Bob McDonnell Article

I am sorry for exceeding the three revert rule. Per the talk page, we had already engaged in a discussion with the majority of editors believing that Galraedia's edits were unwarrented. Furthermore, Galraedia has resorted to name calling on the article talk page. Could you add a semi-protection tag on the page? Boromir123 (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I will steer clear of making edits on the article for the next 24 hours:) Boromir123 (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can of course add the template, but that won't solve anything as an administrator needs to protect the article before it has any effect :). I dropped you, Galraedia and Soxwon a note on the issue, and i left a custom message at Galraedia for adding level 4 equivalent warning templates. I *hope* that this is enough to quell the current edit war (Sometimes a template can do wonders, as your comment shows), but if it remains to be an issue feel free to add a note on WP:AN3 or WP:ANI describing the situation. I don't think protection is in order as it would keep everyone from editing the article, not just the involved party's in the conflict. Kind regards, Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no name calling on the talk page other then Boromir123 and Soxwan's incapability to read. Also I would like to requests that these "majority of editors" be looked into because I have found two that have a history of conflicts with other editors and that have been accused of removing sections that do not conform to their bias. Thanks.Galraedia (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm, technically you just said that both editors are biased, and that they cannot read. However, regardless of the situation, edit warring is not the answer and actually forbidden trough the WP:3RR rule, which you crossed. If you have a conflict with other editors you should first try to mediate it on the talk page, and if that does not work, seek a third opinion or dispute resolution. As any account can revert easily, you would be busy till next morning reverting eachother, and that would not help anyone at all :). Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm, technically that is not "name-calling". They should actually consider it a compliment because there are far worser things that could be said about them; however, I choose to keep those things to myself. :) Mediating it on the talk page as you have suggested has done nothing to solve the problem. They believe that they have consensus although not everyone is in agreement, and if not everyone is in agreement how can they have consensus? And if I crossed any rule then so have they. However, since editors, such as Soxwan (who has a history of conflicts with others) is brown-nosing I don't really expect you to care.Galraedia (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both Boromit123 and Soxwon made 3 reverts today, which means they (just) stayed within limits. I gave them a warning nonetheless to make sure they are not going over the limit. But even if they did your argument would be WAX, as you reverted 6 times today. Also, have a look at WP:Consensus. Consensus is rarely unanimous, and neither does it have to be (We would never, EVER get anything done around here if that was a requirement :-) ). From the reverts in the past few days it is visible that 5 editors have reverted your changes, and 2 (including yourself) seem to uphold them. At the very least we can conclude that you don't have consensus for your changes either.

As for me caring: Yes i do, or i wouldn't get myself involved with this edit war. Edit wars have never, ever solved a problem, and therefor i rather see them mediated or discussed instead of fought. I have restored the article to its pre-edit war state, and i HOPE the three, four, five of you - i don't care about the amount - can come to some form of compromise regarding this article. However, i have no issue taking this to WP:RPP if the edit war continuer's, or to WP:AN3 \ WP:ANI if there are more 3RR violations. I know i am replying to you at this time, but naturally this goes for any party involved. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excirial did you even read the talk page on the article in discussion? The changes made were reverted before they even tried to reach a consensus. And if a person didn't see the section before it was reverted how could they possibly argue to keep something that they haven't even seen? Also, there were 3 people (including myself) who were okay with it. Like I told those against keeping the section, this is Wikipedia and not Faux News. Showing only one side of the story, as the editors in question want, doesn't present a NPOV. So, while you threaten me with a 3RR for changing it you also allow a violation to a NPOV. I believe that you are showing favoritism to editors like Soxwon for brown-nosing, because regardless of the conflicts that they seem to get in for removing other people's work they are allowed to remain here regardless of whether or not it was justified. I am not intimidated by you Excirial and I have another place in mind where you can put your RPP, AN3 and ANI. Galraedia (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I may jump in, Galraedia, as we have repeatedly stated, THE INFORMATION SHOULD GO IN! REPEAT, THE INFORMATION SHOULD GO IN! I have repeatedly stated this as have other editors. What we don't want is a controversy section as this is considered bad by wikipedia standards and, in general, does look bad. What is better is to find appropriate places in the article for the information to go. Honestly, we don't need to make a huge issue out of this but you refuse to compromise on how the information should be presented in even the slightest manner. Soxwon (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Galraedia, i am not trying to intimidate you, nor do i wish to threaten you with 3RR. If you believe my comment was meant that way then i am sorry, as i obviously didn't relay my intentions correctly. The only thing that i really care about, is trying to stop several editors from reverting each other over and over again. Generally this only sours relations between editors, and makes it unlikely people will even try to find a compromise, Most times unchecked edit wars end up in accusations from both sides, mostly not even on the subject anymore. For what it is worth: I personally believe information should be unbiased, and yes, that means criticism should be allowed - provided it is reliably sourced and not taking up 90% of the article. Seeing Sox comment i would say both of you agree that it should be kept. However, the issue here is how it should be presented in the article (A separate section or merged in the rest of the text). Since both of you already agree on the content, is it really that hard to debate the presentation of that content? :)

I would urge you all to find some middle ground where everyone is happy or at least acceptive, or that you seek dispute resolution. Reverting each other over and over ad infinitum won't ever solve anything, and those situations just tend to end in page protection, ani drama and all kind of other consequences i prefer seeing used against vandals, instead of constructive editors. And yes, i would label everyone here as constructive, as all of you at least take the time to discuss things. :) Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 08:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meg Whitman

Recently I made an edit to the 2010 Campaign for California Governor section of the Meg Whitman article regarding her endorsement by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and you quickly reverted claiming it was "value judgement/commentary". That is Meg Whitman's biggest and most important edorsement and I think it should be noted. It is her most important endorsement for several reasons: Condoleezza Rice is the former U.S. Secretary of State, the most powerful position in the United States federal government after only the President and Vice President. Although she is not currently holding that title, she is still the most powerful woman within the Republican Party. An endorsement of a candidate that comes from a President (or former Pres.), Vice President (or former VP), and Secretary of State (or former SoS) are generally considered to be the most valuable or important endorsements in politics because these are the most powerful and highest ranking officials of the U.S. federal government. So my edit was a good one. An endorsement from Secretary Rice is far more valuable than one from Mitt Romney or John McCain. Endorsements from the Speaker of the House, Senate Majority Leader, and other very senior, prominent or popular U.S. senators or Governors are also usually very valuable, but still they do not generally carry us much weight as one coming from a former Secretary of State. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.169.0 (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Massa

Any reason why you wish to bring up the story of the 2006 Election in the resignation of Congressman Massa? In your citings, the comments made are not relevant to the thread you are discussing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeminNY (talk • contribs) 01:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve King

I just wanted you to know that a user added that original research back into the article. 63.215.29.202 (talk) 03:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned Women for America and LGBT rights opposition

Hi, I see you removed the category listing from Concerned Women for America because this category "seems like a biased category". LGBT rights opposition is simply stating a fact, not in any way a pejorative. There is no category listing called "anti-gay marriage" and even if there were, CW of A not only opposes same-sex marriage, they oppose ANY recognition of same sex couples, marriage, civil unions or domestic partners, they oppose ending DADT (dont ask dont tell), they are oppose Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), they have accused same-sex partners of those killed in 9/11 of "trying to hijack the moral capital of marriage".

I appreciate your kind and rational understanding.--DCX (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have again reverted my addition to this group in the LGBT Rights Opposition. Please discuss how we can resolve this to avoid frustration. To me it is evident that the Category name is not pejorative and is applicable to this group as the article supports. --DCX (talk) 06:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explanations for reverts

Can I remind you that Rajendra K. Pachauri‎ is under probation? Reverts with no hint of explanation such as [1] could easily be seen as edit warring William M. Connolley (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of source and material

Hi, you removed sourced content and the source citation with this edit. Please do not remove reliable sourcing. Regards Hekerui (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Corbett

The Tom Corbett article has a number of additions which you have quite properly removed, but there is the possibility of an edit war. Perhaps there is some way to avoid that. What do you think about the situation? --DThomsen8 (talk) 10:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation

You may want to check the sources before re-adding removed content, as you did here. Not only has the editor(Movieguruman) been going from article to article inserting almost exclusively Fox links, but also copy and pasting the material from those links word for word. Which is almost always a copyright violation. Perhaps if you want, you can find another source, and reword the entry. Of course the article isn't supposed to be used for a day by day additions of poll numbers, but there is an article for that. As well as other articles about health care. Thanks. DD2K (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve King

I was wondering if you could keep up that article. There is a lot of controversy written in it, but some of the paragraphs do not indicate a controversy. Yephedid (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]